Ben Kaufman ’17 and Wyatt Smitherman ’16 debate what the Religious Freedom Restoration Act will mean for Indiana. Kaufman argues that the law will only allow for minority discrimination while Smitherman argues the bill is similar to many others, but would ultimately be better if replaced by At-Will contracting.

In the interest of increasing patient autonomy, opening the doors to true forms of euthanasia goes too far. Physician-assisted suicide, therefore, exists as the only viable option. Ethically indistinguishable (at worst) from current medical practices, dying with dignity needs to become a legally acceptable option for terminally ill people.

Diversity remains ongoing struggle

The full economic picture of Stanford's undergraduate population is, given available data, impossible to determine. There are indicators that Stanford's student body is less diverse in geographic and socioeconomic background than in other common measures of diversity, such as race and ethnicity (JING RAN/The Stanford Daily)

The composite picture of socioeconomic diversity at Stanford is a patchwork, both in the data available and the efforts made to achieve it.

The first class of students at Stanford, in 1891, famously required no tuition. Among the ranks of the Farm’s “pioneer class” was a young man born in an Iowa village, the son of a blacksmith and a minister, who at the time of his admission was orphaned and living in Oregon.

Herbert Hoover’s enrollment at Stanford has served for more than a century as the University’s archetypal story of success and meritocratic inclusion. Ensuring a diversity of class and background at Stanford, however, has only grown more complicated since the days of Leland Stanford’s recruiting trips across the American West.

Competition is extremely high to enter Stanford, with an admit rate of 7.2 percent. And those who make it in are, as a group, financially better off than the rest of the American population. According to Director of Financial Aid Karen Cooper, the median family income at Stanford is approximately $125,000; by contrast, the median family income in the United States in 2008, the last year for which data are available, is $61,521.

Beyond establishing a rough baseline, however, determining the actual economic diversity of Stanford’s students becomes a far more complex question.

Stanford’s financial aid office only has reliable information for the half of the student population it provides aid to, and the Office of Undergraduate Admission does not assess financial details during its need-blind admission process. No University office looks at the total economic composition of the incoming freshman class, nor does any office actually carry out demographic breakdowns by levels of income.

At the lowest levels of income, 14 percent of the undergraduate population received Pell Grants for the 2008-09 academic year, typically rewarded to families that make under $40,000 a year.

More broadly, 46 percent of Stanford students receive need-based scholarships. While only approximately 50 percent of the Stanford undergraduate population receives need-based financial aid, an additional group of slightly over 30 percent receives some other form of assistance, such as outside or athletic scholarships, while 20 percent attend Stanford without any aid at all.

Of those families receiving need-based aid, only about 15 to 20 percent earn more than $150,000 a year, according to Cooper, and roughly 60 percent make less than $100,000.

“What I have heard students say, both white and black, is that, ‘I didn’t know I was low income until I came to Stanford,” said Sally Dickson, associate vice provost and dean of educational resource centers.

While the Office of Undergraduate Admission strives to ensure the representation of minority racial and ethnic groups in each class, Stanford does not obtain a complete picture of a student’s family income until the student applies for financial aid. As a result, the process of seeking economic diversity is not what Cooper would call an exact science.

“You really can’t make any assumptions on someone’s income based on race or ethnicity or even where they come from,” Cooper said.

Stanford’s administration emphasizes the diversity of background and life experience in its student body, but specific data are not made public by the Office of Undergraduate Admission beyond broad indicators, such as the percent of students admitted from California and the number of states and countries represented.

Still, across the University, steps are being made toward helping students feel more included on campus. Dickson said the most pressing priority for her office is meeting the needs of first-generation college students, who make up an “increasing number” of incoming students.

Dickson is seeking to fill a full-time staff position dedicated to addressing that community, a post that was only quarter-time position during the 2009-10 academic year. Her office also sends special invitations to students who are first generation or of “low income”—from a household under $100,000—during New Student Orientation.

“I think what is important is that our overall climate here at Stanford is welcoming and greeting, and that all students feel they are a contributor to the life of the campus,” Dickson said.

“I do think that for students who come from under-resourced high schools, or areas that are low income, their adjustment and transition may be different,” she added.

Then there are incoming freshmen from rural areas or states, a relatively small yet substantial segment of the student body. While they don’t have a dedicated community center and aren’t greeted as a group during New Student Orientation, the challenges they can face at Stanford are often similar.

Jon Christensen ‘81, the executive director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West, said students from rural areas have to navigate ingrained attitudes or prejudices toward their background.

“There’s a part of the whole modern project and the Western intellectual tradition, that in some ways positions itself toward urban life and away from rural experience,” Christensen said.

“There are students who come from rural America who feel that they still study under that burden, and that their experience is not as valid and that it is not recognized,” he added.

Bea Gordon ’10, who majored in English and environmental history and grew up on a cattle ranch in Wyoming, also said relating to her classmates could be a challenge.

“You can’t really talk about driving a truck when you were seven when you’re with a bunch of people,” she said.

But both Gordon and Christensen said the classroom could provide a means for students to feel more comfortable, and that through academic study rural students could connect their experience with higher education to their life before Stanford.

“For me that was really nice, because I got to learn more about my home,” Gordon said.

She emphasized that to view rural students as one group would be to oversimplify their experience—a problem that Christensen points to as an additional challenge in reaching out to students with diverse backgrounds.

“Everyone has a different rural background,” Gordon said. “I’m not really going to be sympathetic with someone who grew up on a corn farm in Nebraska.”

Christensen, who attended Stanford in the late 1970s, was upbeat in his assessment of the culture of inclusion on campus.

“I think there is more room for encouraging and understanding and respecting rural experience,” he said. “There is still some of that bias, but I think there is more understanding now, and that students feel more comfortable and confident with bringing that experience here to Stanford.”

In assessing diversity at Stanford, one thing is clear: the picture is murky, and in upcoming years it won’t become any more easier for Stanford to match its practices to its stated commitments.

“The world is becoming more diverse, as we know, as well as the realization that there are students with multiple identities,” Dickson said.

But the role of diversity in providing a crucial aspect of education at Stanford seems to be an area of broad agreement—so long as the University can allow a shared place at the table for what Christensen calls the “richer conversation” provided by someone with a distinct background.

“It’s about making space for that kind of experience,” Christensen said.

Very well articulated piece. The recognition that diversity is both horizontal and vertical – and interactive is central to the success of any initiative. The creation or establishment of an enclave supports transition while programs or classes that educate about the history and culture of any group, helps move the conversation closer to “normal.” The goal is to retain academic excellence while becoming more inclusive. Way to go!

john

Title is misleading. Should be “Financial Diversity” not “Diversity” as that is the only issue addressed in the article. I think Stanford does an outstanding job to bring in students from low income backgrounds and fund their college experience.

Tiq

Ethnic/Racial diversity should continue to be the primary metric driving inclusion/access conversations.

Data regarding the number of first generation/low income/rural students who are of underrepresented ethnic minority backgrounds would be interesting to analyze.

Also, a study regarding educational outcomes (GPA, fellowships, graduate degree acceptance, research experiences, to name a few) of students in the bottom 15% of Stanford’s income distribution vs those in the top 15% (or, the roughly 20% of legacy students) would make for an interesting comparison.

Great piece and thank you for your input, Dr. Al.

Christian

So ends one of the great runs in the history of journalism…

JC

I was glad to see mention of students from rural areas—Gordon and Christensen’s statements were spot-on. The urban mindset hegemony can be incredibly frustrating for us, but there’s so much more to that frustration than issues of income or ethnicity.

Alum

“Of those families receiving need-based aid… roughly 60 percent make less than $100,000.”

Guess it’s been a bad two years for Stanford families. A February 25, 2008 Daily article quoted Cooper as saying that 30-35% of students came from failies earning less than $100,000. And my observation of my classmates is that figure was probably high.

Alum

Oh wait, I see now. Only about half of students receive need based aid so 60% of students on need-based aid equals 30% of all undergrads.

Recent Alum

Tiq, I would like to see the statistics on the number of low income white students too. I bet their percentage of the community is lower than the percentage of underrepresented minorities who come from low income backgrounds. This is not to detract from efforts to bring minorities to the campus but I see no reason why that should be the primary or most important indicator when we can just as easily do both. This is not some sort of competition.

Brendan

@Second Alum and @Tiq: I actually see reason for socioeconomic background to be the more important indicator. Race-based diversity initiatives have the potential to give a wealthy minorty a boost over a poor white or asian student. Clearly the latter student has less opportunities and more obstacles to overcome. Such a scenario is ridiculous and does not justify a greater good.

On an unrelated note, I’d like to see the stats on students from the middle class at Stanford.

Brendan

@Second Alum and @Tiq: I actually see reason for socioeconomic background to be the more important indicator. Race-based diversity initiatives have the potential to give a wealthy minority a boost over a poor white or asian student. Clearly the latter student has less opportunities and more obstacles to overcome. Such a scenario is ridiculous and does not justify a greater good.

On an unrelated note, I’d like to see the stats on students from the middle class at Stanford.

Gordon

Here’s a really novel idea: why not build a university community based on academic excellence? Stanford is a private institution and can, ipso facto, set its own rules but the fad for ‘diversity’ (a euphemism for narcissistic liberal guilt) deforms and undermines any place of learning dumb enough to embrace it.

True diversity is neither good nor bad – it happens through circumstance not social engineering.

Sure

Letting in more low income students (like those under 40,000, as I am fairly certain making about 100,000 puts you near the upper quintile for household incomes = being rich) will not help diversity when they face discrimination from other students, staff and faculty. The cultural atmosphere is a product of the students who attend, namely 85% not receiving the Pell Grant, and therefore not caring about the rest. And for those who honestly think they are here by their merit alone, I wholeheartedly encourage you to take your amazing existence and drop out of school, and leave it for those who need it. I’m sure if you are as great as you think, you should not need an education that is ‘given’ to those seeking diversity, and can achieve all kinds of things in life without any help whatsoever from an educational institution.